Skip to main content
NS-720MH-132 vs PS710M13GFH-22/WSHW 8 of 18 identical Swap Change panels

Phono Solar NS-720MH-132 vs Phono Solar PS710M13GFH-22/WSHW

NS-720MH-132
720 Wp 23.17 % N-type Incomplete
Open panel page Datasheet PDF
VS
Phono Solar PS710M13GFH-22/WSHW
PS710M13GFH-22/WSHW
710 Wp 22.86 % HJT Bifacial
Open panel page Datasheet PDF
The verdict

10 differences, and they point both ways

The largest is temperature coefficient: 0.050 %/°C better in heat. 8 of 18 comparable parameters are identical, with 1 more left out because at least one datasheet does not publish it.

See all 10 differences
How alike are they
8 of 18 comparable
parameters are identical
identical differs not published
01

What actually differs

10 of 18 parameters
Parameter NS-720MH-132 PS710M13GFH-22/WSHW Difference
Temperature coefficient -0.290 %/°C -0.240 %/°C 0.050 %/°C better in heat
Performance warranty 25 yrs 30 yrs 5 yrs longer
Weight 34.0 kg 37.9 kg 3.9 kg lighter
Weight per kWp 47.2 kg/kWp 53.4 kg/kWp 6.2 kg/kWp lighter
Module efficiency 23.17 % 22.86 % 0.31 pp more efficient
Cell technology N-type HJT N-type vs HJT
Power density 231.8 Wp/m² 228.6 Wp/m² 3.2 Wp/m² higher
Rated power 720 Wp 710 Wp 10 W more power
Bifacial No Yes No vs Yes
Dimensions 2384x1303x30 mm 2384x1303x33 mm 2384x1303x30 mm vs 2384x1303x33 mm
02

What it means on a roof

Thirty years of production
A 1.0% first-year loss then 0.40% a year, assumed for both panels, at 1,200 kWh/kWp a year
NS-720MH-132
24,157 kWh
PS710M13GFH-22/WSHW
23,822 kWh
Lifetime gap
335 kWh
Output when it is hot
Rated power carried across the range a module actually sees
Scenario NS-720MH-132 PS710M13GFH-22/WSHW
Standard test conditions 25 °C 100.0% of rated power 720 W 710 W
Cool, bright day 40 °C 95.7% of rated power 689 W 684 W
Typical summer roof 55 °C 91.3% of rated power 657 W 659 W
Hot roof 70 °C 87.0% of rated power 626 W 633 W
03

Full specification

Parameter NS-720MH-132 PS710M13GFH-22/WSHW Difference
Power and efficiency
Rated power 720 Wp 710 Wp +10 W for NS-720MH-132
Module efficiency 23.17 % 22.86 % +0.31 pp for NS-720MH-132
Power density 231.8 Wp/m² 228.6 Wp/m² +3.2 Wp/m² for NS-720MH-132
Open-circuit voltage 50.00 V 50.01 V Effectively the same
Voltage at max power 41.89 V 41.99 V Effectively the same
Short-circuit current 18.00 A 17.97 A Effectively the same
Current at max power 17.19 A 16.91 A Effectively the same
Temperature
Temperature coefficient -0.290 %/°C -0.240 %/°C +0.050 %/°C for PS710M13GFH-22/WSHW
Mechanical
Dimensions 2384x1303x30 mm 2384x1303x33 mm 2384x1303x30 mm vs 2384x1303x33 mm
Module area 3.106 m² 3.106 m² Same
Weight 34.0 kg 37.9 kg -3.9 kg for NS-720MH-132
Weight per kWp 47.2 kg/kWp 53.4 kg/kWp -6.2 kg/kWp for NS-720MH-132
Warranty and degradation
Product warranty 15 yrs 15 yrs Same
Performance warranty 25 yrs 30 yrs +5 yrs for PS710M13GFH-22/WSHW
Annual degradation - 0.38 %/yr Not published by Phono Solar
Technology
Cell technology N-type HJT N-type vs HJT
Cell type Monocrystalline Monocrystalline Same
Cell count 132 132 Same
Bifacial No Yes No vs Yes
04

Against the whole database

14,129 panels
Efficiency
#1,518 vs #2,591
NS-720MH-132 leads by 1,073 places
Power density
#1,390 vs #2,529
NS-720MH-132 leads by 1,139 places
Heat behaviour
#2,220 vs #13
PS710M13GFH-22/WSHW leads by 2,207 places
Weight
#1,588 vs #7,339
NS-720MH-132 leads by 5,751 places
Warranty
#9,912 vs #21
PS710M13GFH-22/WSHW leads by 9,891 places
Overall
#689 vs #618
PS710M13GFH-22/WSHW leads by 71 places
05

More useful comparisons

Open the full database
Same series, other bin
Phono Solar NS-720MH-132 vs Phono Solar NS-730MH-132
3 differences, the largest is module efficiency
Same series, other bin
Phono Solar NS-720MH-132 vs Phono Solar NS-710MH-132
3 differences, the largest is module efficiency
Same series, other bin
Phono Solar NS-720MH-132 vs Phono Solar NS-700MH-132
3 differences, the largest is module efficiency
Same series, other bin
Phono Solar NS-720MH-132 vs Phono Solar NS-690MH-132
5 differences, the largest is module efficiency
Same series, other bin
Phono Solar NS-720MH-132 vs Phono Solar NS-670MH-132
10 differences, the largest is module efficiency
Same series, other bin
Phono Solar NS-720MH-132 vs Phono Solar NS-665MH-132
10 differences, the largest is module efficiency
06

Written summary

07

Questions about this pairing

Which panel is better: Phono Solar NS-720MH-132 or Phono Solar PS710M13GFH-22/WSHW?
According to our database: Phono Solar NS-720MH-132 has higher module efficiency (23.17% vs 22.86%); Phono Solar PS710M13GFH-22/WSHW tolerates heat better (temp coeff -0.240%/°C vs -0.290%/°C). See the full spec comparison and 30-year energy simulation above for a complete picture.
What is the efficiency of Phono Solar NS-720MH-132 and Phono Solar PS710M13GFH-22/WSHW?
Phono Solar NS-720MH-132 has a module efficiency of 23.17%, while Phono Solar PS710M13GFH-22/WSHW is 22.86%. Higher efficiency means more electricity from the same roof area - useful when space is limited.
What cell technology does Phono Solar NS-720MH-132 use vs Phono Solar PS710M13GFH-22/WSHW?
Phono Solar NS-720MH-132 uses N-type cells; Phono Solar PS710M13GFH-22/WSHW uses HJT. Modern n-type technologies (TOPCon, HJT, BC) typically deliver higher efficiency and lower degradation compared to older PERC (p-type) cells.
What is the warranty on Phono Solar NS-720MH-132 and Phono Solar PS710M13GFH-22/WSHW?
Phono Solar NS-720MH-132 has a 25 years power warranty; Phono Solar PS710M13GFH-22/WSHW has a 30 years power warranty. The power warranty guarantees a minimum percentage of rated output at the end of the warranty period (typically 80-87%). Product (materials) warranties are usually shorter.
Are Phono Solar NS-720MH-132 and Phono Solar PS710M13GFH-22/WSHW bifacial panels?
Phono Solar PS710M13GFH-22/WSHW is bifacial (captures light from both faces); Phono Solar NS-720MH-132 is monofacial. Bifacial panels work best on ground mounts or raised structures with a light-coloured surface underneath.

Shop prices: See 4 Phono Solar offers

Every figure here is from the manufacturers' own datasheets - a dash means the value is not published, never an estimate. The thirty-year projection and the temperature scenarios are calculations from those figures, and each states its assumption above.